Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[netmilsmom]

Joysong:

And it is posts like these without a foundation for truth that allege the permissions are an abuse, and this perpetuates the error publicly.

Female Altar Servers started without permission. At the time that girls began to serve on the Altar it was an abuse.
Now is a different story, the rules are changed. But just as the fast before receiving Our Lord has been shortened, the breaking of that rule when it was in effect makes it no less a sin.

 

[thistle]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Well, both of us have done research in the area. I find that this innovation is creeping into many parishes around the world. (through asking on worldwide websites as well as friends and family in Australia who travel extensively) However to say that it is a norm in MOST parishes would be something that would warrant some citation of reference.

I will save up my pennies and try to visit all the churches in other countries and in 20 years I’ll get back with my findings!! lol

Seriously, though, I would, however, venture to say that if you go to a lot of churches (not all) in any country and find a common practice (not just holding hands) then it is a reasonable conclusion that such a practice would be found in most churches in that country.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Net,

Female Altar Servers started without permission. At the time that girls began to serve on the Altar it was an abuse.
Now is a different story, the rules are changed. But just as the fast before receiving Our Lord has been shortened, the breaking of that rule when it was in effect makes it no less a sin.

You may be correct, I did not have statistics to know the girls were in use without permission - past tense. That does not validate a post alleging publicly that it is presently an abuse. I would not dare to judge the intent in the poster’s mind, for it is probably due to lack of knowledge on the matter. But nevertheless, it does a lot of harm.

And what is at the root of this? Failure to trust the guidance of the local ordinary, believing many things foreign to one’s familiarity are abuses because of previous public scandals and propaganda (sometimes seen even on this forum). I would bet that, had I not posted the correction, many would return to their parishes with an arbitrary belief that their priests are promoting abuse. You follow me?

I think it is imperative for the love of the Church, that people refrain from casting shadows on the liturgy and our clergy, whether innocently or not, and do their homework by obtaining proper instruction.

Carole

 

[Orionthehunter]

theMutant:

An abuse is a deliberate deviation from the rubrics or the words of the Liturgy. While I don’t like holding hands during the Our Father, the rubrics (to the best of my knowledge) say nothing about it. However, there are reasonable limits on this. If you choose to hold hands, don’t assume that everyone else thinks it’s a great idea. Accept it if the people next to you don’t want to do so. I’ve been in parishes where people leave their pews to stretch across the aisles to hold hands and even link one row to the next to form “an endless chain.” The reason that I consider this an abuse is that the faithful are not supposed to leave the pews at this point in the Mass. It also creates a huge distraction while people jostle around. Also, at parishes where this type of thing is done, it creates an unwarranted pressure on those who choose not to hold hands or to move into the aisles.

I know of a case where a man was standing next to the aisle with his hands clasped in prayer in the traditional manner for the Our Father. The person from the other side came all the way across to try to get him to hold hands and even nudged him a couple of times. This is abuse and the priest should not allow it.

In regard to dealing with abuses. The first thing to do is to make sure that what has been done is, in fact, not part of the Mass. There are a huge number of options that make for nearly 40 million legitimate variations of the liturgy. If, after careful consideration you feel that something is being done that shouldn’t, exercise patience in all of the following steps. Do not expect things to turn around immediately. Give the people you talk to time, plenty of time, to consider what you have to say and to put it into effect. The second, is not to assume ill will. Approach the priest with respect to discuss the matter; not in a confrontational manner. If you are not satisfied, then go to the pastor (assuming that the priest in step 2 was not the pastor. The fourth step is to write to the bishop. Again, do this with respect for all involved. Do not make accusations but explain that you are concerned that this is occurring and that the priest and pastor do not seem to be addressing it.

To address the question in the title of the thread. The big deal is that the Mass is not the worship of the local parish community. It is not the worship of the local Church (diocese). It is not even the worship of the collected local Churches of the region (such as, the United States). It is the worship of the Rite of the Church to which you belong and of the Church as a whole. It is not ours to do with as we please. This has been repeated by Rome many times and references to this have already been given by other posters in this thread. Catholics are free to gather together to worship God in their own way (as long as that way does not constitute some form of rejection of any part of the Catholic Faith) outside of the liturgy.

This is such a good post. There are abuses and there adaptations allowed according local custom. These are not equal. One is to be exterminated. The other is even sometimes encouraged (our diocese has created a parish within a parish that caters to our Sudanese immigrants. This “sub-parish” has been given permission to say Mass in accord with Sudanese custom). While this Sudanese worship is not for me and I’ve only gone when it was the only Mass I could make because of holiday travel or family obligations, I celebrate the chance for these new American’s to hold onto this tradition of their Catholic culture.

I’ve read many of the threads that about “abuses”. I believe that about 90% of the so-called “abuses” are really local customs allowed by the GIRM that some people don’t like. They often-times support their position by saying “standing on your head when you get communion isn’t prohibited either.” Personally, I only hold the hands of my family during the Lord’s Prayer. This is how we say Grace at home. I think it is proper that the Church respects some local customs (even a local custom that originates in my home- the first church).

But if the Bishop were to instruct not to hold hands, I’d cease immediately and without question. And this, my friends is the test- what does my Bishop as my shepherd encourage (this should be followed with enthusiasm), allow (this should be considered carefully and with the heart and mind focused on God), discourage (this should be condidered alsowith the heart and mind focused on God and deviations from the Bishop’s instruction adopted with extreme caution), and prohibited (cease immediately).

IMHO, when the posture/position/issue calls for a statement against an instruction from the Bishop, disunity is fostered and this is the root of so many of our problems.

 

[netmilsmom]

thistle:

I will save up my pennies and try to visit all the churches in other countries and in 20 years I’ll get back with my findings!! lol

Seriously, though, I would, however, venture to say that if you go to a lot of churches (not all) in any country and find a common practice (not just holding hands) then it is a reasonable conclusion that such a practice would be found in most churches in that country.

No way!
The whole thing comes down to whom one speaks to. When I spoke with the people in different parts of the Midwest United States the Holding Hands innovation was so foreign to them many had never heard of it! To say that speaking to even 100 people determines a norm is pushing the envelope. If one speaks to 100 Charismatics, speaking in tongues in a norm in the liturgy. Even in the most innovative parish, I have not seen it anywhere near a norm in Detroit.

Like I said, citation of reference is needed to make a statement of MOST.

 

[netmilsmom]

Joysong:

You may be correct, I did not have statistics to know the girls were in use without permission - past tense. That does not validate a post alleging publicly that it is presently an abuse. I would not dare to judge the intent in the poster’s mind, for it is probably due to lack of knowledge on the matter. But nevertheless, it does a lot of harm.

And what is at the root of this? Failure to trust the guidance of the local ordinary, believing many things foreign to one’s familiarity are abuses because of previous public scandals and propaganda (sometimes seen even on this forum). I would bet that, had I not posted the correction, many would return to their parishes with an arbitrary belief that their priests are promoting abuse. You follow me?

I think it is imperative for the love of the Church, that people refrain from casting shadows on the liturgy and our clergy, whether innocently or not, and do their homework by obtaining proper instruction.

Paramedicgirl didn’t say it was a current abuse

Paramedicgirl:

When the subject of altar girls originating as an abuse came up, (we have almost exclusively girls) one lady said that women have made progress in the world, from gaining the right to vote to now being altar servers at Mass. Some people just don’t get it. It is all about the power to have things their way. These are the people who perpetuate liturgical abuses.

 

[thistle]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

No way!
The whole thing comes down to whom one speaks to. When I spoke with the people in different parts of the Midwest United States the Holding Hands innovation was so foreign to them many had never heard of it! To say that speaking to even 100 people determines a norm is pushing the envelope. If one speaks to 100 Charismatics, speaking in tongues in a norm in the liturgy. Even in the most innovative parish, I have not seen it anywhere near a norm in Detroit.

Like I said, citation of reference is needed to make a statement of MOST.

Well I think we will just have to agree to disagree. It might be that in the USA you are right but across the globe holding hands or orans is by far the norm and what you will see in most churches. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. In fact when I look at the profiles of those who are against this anyway they are mostly American. Maybe you just don’t know what is going on in the rest of the world.

 

[netmilsmom]

thistle:

Well I think we will just have to agree to disagree. It might be that in the USA you are right but across the globe holding hands or orans is by far the norm and what you will see in most churches. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. In fact when I look at the profiles of those who are against this anyway they are mostly American. Maybe you just don’t know what is going on in the rest of the world.

We can each make our deductions from those that we speak to but until one can find a citation from a genuine reference, it is your opinion and nothing more.
Maybe you just speak to moderists on a general basis.
Those in my area who are from Argentina, Mexico, Poland and Slovakia are appalled by this innovation. In fact, our Nigerian visiting Priest is so happy that he found a parish that has a liturgy in a more Historically Roman Catholic vein, just like back home. It’s who we speak to, friend. This should not be painted with a broad brush.

 

[YinYangMom]

Quaere Verum:

I consider myself an Orthodox Catholic who longs for the traditional Church of old. I like that every “i” was dotted & “t” crossed. I like that everyone knew exactly what to do & expect and when to do it. It’s no longer that way, however.

While I truly appreciate the beauty and reverence of the traditional church of ‘old’, I would not want everything to go back to that day. Here’s why:

While every i was dotted, every t crossed and everyone knew exactly what do to, expect and when - I would venture very few people understood the why behind it all. I know my father never wanted to know the why. He was more comfortable being a follower. Me? of another generation, I needed the why, following was not enough, I wanted to be an active part of everything I could. Comfort isn’t what our faith calls for though, is it? No. We are called to go outside our comfort zones in serving our Lord.

With the Novus Ordo, and particularly through the call for laity to become actively involved in their parish through the various ministries available, I believe there has been added to the appreciation for what Jesus did for us, the appropriate response to that sacrifice - “to go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”

It calls to mind the way Jesus scolded the Pharisees for being all about the letter of the law and appearances than the spirit of the law and the true condition of their hearts. Granted, paricipants in the Old Mass were not expected to do more so they weren’t ‘wrong’ not to do so, but the Church recognized they could be doing more to serve the Lord so She made changes which would encourage them toward that deeper relationship with Christ. I, for one, am eternally grateful for such opportunity. I’d much rather be a ‘doer’ than a ‘bystander’.

Are minor deviations from the GIRM really that important? Also, is it ever O.K., as a parishoner, to just put up with these so that the Sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated without the extraneous concern of minor details?

Here’s my concern with these ‘minor’ deviations and how parishioners should respond:

Very few parishioners even know what a GIRM is. The majority of parishioners in any given parish believe the reason the EMHC wipes the chalice after offering the Blood of Christ to them is for health reasons - not to ensure none of His Blood spills, drips or is wasted.

Now some people do know what the GIRM is, and as you’ve found on these boards, cite a particular GIRM passage and you’ll get 4 or 5 different interpretations of what it allows/prohibits. There’s a fine line between reading text, comprehending text, and applying text to particular situations. Most parishioners do not fall in the category of being able to do so well. All parishioners certainly can access the GIRM, read it and understand it.

But then you have the problem you raise. Once they recognize something is in the GIRM regarding a particular posture, word, action when they see something ‘different’ it becomes a distraction until they can get home, look up the passage and realize a) yes it was wrong or b) no it wasn’t…and if a) then they get all concerned about what they’re supposed to do about it. If they hadn’t read the GIRM they would not have had the distraction to begin with.

I’m under the impression the Church knew what She was doing when she wrote the GIRM and distributed it to a select group of people rather than issue a rulling that a copy must be distributed to every parishioner in every parish. I know the Church recommeneds every Catholic should own a Bible and a copy of the Catechism and I trust that’s because those were written specifically with the general parishioner as the end user in mind. All the other documents have a select audience and while we are certainly privileged to access the documents we should do so with humility and understanding that it’s directed toward another audience not us specifically.

For those who can read the GIRM and Canons, etc., understand them in the proper context and interpret them correctly, more power to them. Every parish should have at least 5 (one who attends each mass offered) so that there is some assurance the Masses are conducted properly. I believe, truly, that those members of the faithful are gifted by the Holy Spirit with wisdom and knowledge expressly for the purpose of protecting the Holy Sacrifice. So for those who have that gift :tiphat: We need you. Me? Having read the GIRM and other documents regarding Vatican II, I recognize I have not been blessed with such gifts and my call is not to be the watchdog of our parish. I will, however, support the chosen few who are, and I thank God for sending them to our parish for they have served Him well.

 

[YinYangMom]

domineutvideam:

I wouldn’t be so sure of the “if it’s not forbidden then it’s not an abuse” approach. We should be seeking a morality of excellence rather than a morality of obligation. We should use our freedom to pursue excellence in how we treat the Blessed Sacrament rather than measuring each step we take to see how close we can step to the line without crossing over. Imagine if I were to apply the concept that if it’s not explicitly forbidden then it’s not abuse to my own moral life. . .

I think my problem centers around the Liturgy of the Eucharist…that is the part I guard the most. I guess I view the Liturgy of the Word, the opening stuff and the closing stuff on a lesser scale???

So with regard to the Our Father and holding of hands or the sign of the peace, well, if there are variations to that which are not expressly prohibited I defer to the authority of the priest leading the mass.

When it comes to the Eucharistic prayer and every action leading up to the consecration to the time of distribution, then I watch more closely. I have seen certain deviations, ever so slight, but I’ve also seen the look on the priest’s face at the time - one of embarrassment indicating it was a mistake not intentional. But I recognize I am lucky to have a parish priest who respects the magesterium.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Net,

Paramedicgirl didn’t say it was a current abuse.

My apologies, please, but if “I” misread her post which did not clarify that it was past tense, isn’t it possible that others misread it as well? Especially since it is being posted in an “abuse” thread?

Carole

 

[paramedicgirl]

Joysong:

Dear Paramedicgirl,

And it is posts like these without a foundation for truth that allege the permissions are an abuse, and this perpetuates the error publicly.

Please review Pope John Paul’s words to female altar servers in one of his addresses:
adoremus.org/JPII-Altarservers.html

Excuse me for not making myself more clear. I do not want to confuse anyone. I said that altar girls originated as an abuse. What I meant by that is that our parish, and many others started using female altar servers years before they were approved by Pope John Paul II. I do not have a problem with girl altar servers, as long as they can do the job reverently. Same with boys. if they are not spiritually prepared to be up there, then they should not be serving. Simple as that. Please stop reading things into my posts that I did not say. You can do a lot of public damage to someone that way.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Paramedicgirl,

RE: “Please stop reading things into my posts that I did not say.”

Did you not see my apology in the last post?

What I** meant** by that is that our parish, and many others started using female altar servers years before they were approved by Pope John Paul II.

You were not clear what you meant, so it is easy to read unclear things from another’s post, is it not? I’m glad it is straightened out now, but I sense that you are still somewhat miffed.

Carole

 

[MrS]

paramedicgirl:

Excuse me for not making myself more clear. I do not want to confuse anyone. **I said that altar girls originated as an abuse. **What I meant by that is that our parish, and many others started using female altar servers years before they were approved by Pope John Paul II. I do not have a problem with girl altar servers, as long as they can do the job reverently. Same with boys. if they are not spiritually prepared to be up there, then they should not be serving. Simple as that. Please stop reading things into my posts that I did not say.

And you are absolutely right. That is the history of much of the changes we have had to swallow these past decades. Altar girls, EMHCs, readers/lectors, postures, language… all started as an abuse.

I challange anyone…ANYONE… to show a legitimate document from a legitimate authority that initiated any of these changes before they began to occur.

Each occured first as an abuse… what other name can you give to one’s personal desire to insert personal whims into the liturgy??

Recently, a priest told the story of how - as a seminarian - he feared having to give communion to a particular woman who was chewing gum and lacking all reverence during a funeral Mass. He hoped: 1} she would not come forward at communion time, 2} she would not get in line to come to him 3} or the priest would not require his assistance, and thus his having to make a decision.

The priest called for his assistance, the woman came forward, and she got into his line. And he prayed.

The person directly in front of this woman received and then dropped the host. And this young seminarian-soon-to-be priest knew his attention must now shift to the fallen host. As he did so, the lady in question went to the priest and he was able to “decide”.

But this young priest now says “Jesus was willing to take another abuse upon himself, in the dropping of the host, so that I would not have to act - perhaps in error”

Abuses? lots of them!!

We need to look at WHO they abuse. We need more of Him and less of us.

Do the abuses cause us to try harder to concentrate on the liturgy? I hope so. Perhaps that is God’s plan… to make us work for what we want, and for what He wants for us. But we are in this together… for His greater good. And I should think that He would want us to cooperate with Him, and put an end to these abuses-made-norms.

 

[Orionthehunter]

MrS:

And you are absolutely right. That is the history of much of the changes we have had to swallow these past decades. Altar girls, EMHCs, readers/lectors, postures, language… all started as an abuse.

I challange anyone…ANYONE… to show a legitimate document from a legitimate authority that initiated any of these changes before they began to occur.

Each occured first as an abuse… what other name can you give to one’s personal desire to insert personal whims into the liturgy??

Recently, a priest told the story of how - as a seminarian - he feared having to give communion to a particular woman who was chewing gum and lacking all reverence during a funeral Mass. He hoped: 1} she would not come forward at communion time, 2} she would not get in line to come to him 3} or the priest would not require his assistance, and thus his having to make a decision.

The priest called for his assistance, the woman came forward, and she got into his line. And he prayed.

The person directly in front of this woman received and then dropped the host. And this young seminarian-soon-to-be priest knew his attention must now shift to the fallen host. As he did so, the lady in question went to the priest and he was able to “decide”.

But this young priest now says “Jesus was willing to take another abuse upon himself, in the dropping of the host, so that I would not have to act - perhaps in error”

Abuses? lots of them!!

We need to look at WHO they abuse. We need more of Him and less of us.

Do the abuses cause us to try harder to concentrate on the liturgy? I hope so. Perhaps that is God’s plan… to make us work for what we want, and for what He wants for us. But we are in this together… for His greater good. And I should think that He would want us to cooperate with Him, and put an end to these abuses-made-norms.

I am going to focus on what I bolded above. This is not true. An abuse is a willful decision to disregard legitimate instruction. These “adaptations” were an initiation by local Bishops who interpreted that these adaptations were within their purview.

In our diocese, we have a sub-parish within a parish where a Sudanese community is allowed to worship according to their customs. Because their culture doesn’t have organs or pianos, the only musical instrument is drums. We have a similar “adaptation” for our Native American brethren in their “flavor” of worship. These are all legitimate and authentic adaptations approved by our Bishop and authorized by Rome.

Ultimately within the confines of collegiality of the Body of Bishops, a debate took place on if these adaptations (female altar servers, EMHC’s ) were legitimate and authentic or abuses. On most of these issues (female altar servers, EMHC’s etc.), a determination is that they were legitimate and authentic.

Some of these issues have yet to be resolved (posture, hand holding, orans position). However, Pope Benedict recognizes that some of these adaptations **may be ** becoming a distraction and there needs to be greater uniformity. As laity, we should patiently await the resolution of these issues and trust that the Church will find the mind of Christ. To not have that trust is not what is expected of all Catholics.

 

[buffalo]

**Liturgical Laws - Why They Matter

**

 

[Orionthehunter]

Liturgical Laws - Why They Matter

Good succinct article. I will point out that there is certain “flexibility” given to individual Bishops.

1. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.

The debate is essentially then whether or not the locally established norms are “within the limits of his competence” or not. I trust that this Pope is focusing on whether or not certain adaptations are legitimate and authoritative or abuses.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Good succinct article. I will point out that there is certain “flexibility” given to individual Bishops.

1. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.

The debate is essentially then whether or not the locally established norms are “within the limits of his competence” or not. I trust that this Pope is focusing on whether or not certain adaptations are legitimate and authoritative or abuses.

Limited “flexibility” is more accurate.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Limited “flexibility” is more accurate.

If you read my entire post, you’d see the use of the word “limit.” I guess I should have been more repetitive to insure that my words were not misinterpreted.

The debate is essentially then whether or not the locally established norms are “within the limits of his competence” or not. I trust that this Pope is focusing on whether or not certain adaptations are legitimate and authoritative or abuses.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

If you read my entire post, you’d see the use of the word “limit.” I guess I should have been more repetitive to insure that my words were not misinterpreted.

I did read it. I was addressing the “certain flexibility”.